S245: RUXOLITINIB IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH TREATMENT-NAIVE OR STEROID-REFRACTORY CHRONIC GRAFT VERSUS HOST DISEASE: PRIMARY FINDINGS FROM THE PHASE II REACH5 STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topic: 22. Stem cell transplantation - Clinical Background: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major complication of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and ≈ 50% of patients (pts) become steroid-refractory (SR) or steroid-dependent. In the phase 3 REACH3 randomized study (Zeiser et al., N Engl J Med, 2021), ruxolitinib (RUX) demonstrated a superior overall response rate (ORR) vs. best available therapy in pts ≥12 years with SR cGvHD. Aims: We present the first data from REACH5 (NCT03774082), a phase 2 open-label, single-arm, multicenter study of RUX added to corticosteroids (CS) in pediatric pts with moderate to severe cGvHD. Methods: Pts with moderate to severe treatment-naive or SR cGvHD were grouped according to age (Group 1: ≥12 to <18 years, Group 2: ≥6 to <12 years, and Group 3: ≥2 to <6 years). All pts received RUX plus CS ± calcineurin inhibitor for up to 3 years (39 cycles of 28 days/week 156); RUX starting dose was 10 mg twice daily [BID] in Group 1, 5 mg BID in Group 2, and 4 mg/m2 BID in Group 3). The primary efficacy endpoint was ORR at cycle 7 day 1 (C7D1); key secondary endpoints included best overall response (BOR) up to C7D1, failure-free survival, overall survival, and evaluation of safety. CS taper was permitted 2 weeks after the achievement of complete or partial response; following successful CS taper, RUX taper could commence after C7D1. Data were analyzed once all pts had completed 1 year of treatment or discontinued earlier (data cut-off 19 October 2022). Results: Overall, 45 pediatric pts were treated with RUX; 64.4% were male and the median age was 11.0 years (range, 2.0–17.8). At screening, 37.8% of pts had moderate cGvHD and 62.2% had severe cGvHD; 62.2% were SR and 37.8% were treatment-naive. Median time from cGvHD diagnosis to start of study treatment was 49 days (range,1–2999). At data cut-off, the treatment phase was ongoing for 15 pts and 30 pts had discontinued treatment; the most common reasons for discontinuation were physician’s decision (15.6%), adverse event (AE; 13.3%) and lack of efficacy (13.3%). Among all pts, the ORR at C7D1 was 40% (18/45; 90% confidence interval [CI] 27.7, 53.3) and the BOR rate up to C7D1 was 82.2% (37/45; 90% CI 70.2, 90.8) (Table). ORR at C7D1 in treatment-naive and SR pts were 41.2% and 39.3%, respectively. Of pts receiving CS at baseline (40/45; 88.9%), 42.5% (17/40) stopped or completely tapered CS and 75.0% (30/40) had a ≥50% reduction from baseline at least once by C7D1. Among all pts, the CS-free ORR at data cut-off was 37.8% (17/45; 90% CI 25.7, 51.1). The median duration of RUX exposure was 55.1 weeks (range 2.1–112.1). In total, 97.8% (44/45) of pts had an AE (any grade) and 64.4% had a ≥3 grade AE. Most frequently reported AEs were anemia (22.2% any grade; 20.0% ≥3 grade), COVID-19 (17.8% any grade; 4.4% ≥3 grade) and decreased neutrophil count (17.8% any grade; 17.8% ≥3 grade). Overall, 73.3% (33/45) of pts had an infection. Viral infections occurred in 40.0% (18/45) of pts, including 17.8% (8/45) SARS-CoV-2 infections; bacterial and fungal infections occurred in 2.2% and 11.1% of pts, respectively. Overall, 10 (22.2%) pts died during the study. Three (6.7%) pts died whilst receiving RUX or within 30 days of the last study dose; causes of death were aspergillus pneumonia, septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome (1 pt each). Summary/Conclusion: In pediatric pts with cGvHD, RUX treatment led to high ORR at C7D1 and a high BOR up to C7D1, across age groups. ORR was similar in treatment-naive and SR pts at C7D1. The safety profile was consistent with expectations for RUX and this pt population. This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.Keywords: Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), Pediatric, Chronic graft-versus-host, Ruxolitinib
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».